Code Review Request for Bug #4802647

Brandon Passanisi brandon.passanisi at
Wed Dec 21 19:23:06 UTC 2011

Yes, my intent was "extends AbstractSet<E>" instead of "extends 
NewAbstractCollection<E>".  I have reflected this in the updated webrev 
below.  Here's the information:

    Webrev URL:
    Bug URL:

1. In, I changed NewAbstractSet to extend AbstractSet<E>.

2. The changes in 1) resulted in finding out that AbstractSet has the 
same bug behavior with removeAll(null). 
AbstractSet.removeAll(Collection<?> c) was updated accordingly.

3. I filed bug 7123424 to account for the same bug behavior found in 
CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet.

4. It was advised that I skip the failing behavior of 
CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet for 
removeAll(null)/retainAll(null) in and provide a comment about 
how the skip needs to be removed once bug 7123424 is fixed.  This is the 
reason for the instanceof checks that were recently added and the added 


On 12/21/2011 7:52 AM, Jason Mehrens wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:12:02 +1000
> > From: david.holmes at
> > To: brandon.passanisi at
> > Subject: Re: Code Review Request for Bug #4802647
> > CC: core-libs-dev at
> >
> > Brandon,
> >
> > I don't see the purpose of NewAbstractSet. It is identical to
> > NewAbstractCollection.
> I would assume the intent was "extends AbstractSet<E>" instead 
> of "extends NewAbstractCollection<E>".
> Jason

Oracle <>
Brandon Passanisi | Principle Member of Technical Staff

Green Oracle <> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list